MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session May 11, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, May 11, 1995, Chairman Douglas A. Bache presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Pete Ernaut Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Ms. Patricia A. Tripple COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Genie Ohrenschall, District No. 12; Assemblyman Barbara E. Buckley, District No. 8; Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District No. 18. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. George Flint; Mr. Cam C. Walker, Las Vegas Valley Water District; Ms. Thelma Clark, Nevada Seniors Coalition, Inc.; Mr. John Sande, Airport Authority of Washoe County; Stephanie Tyler, city of Sparks; Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau (See also Exhibit B attached hereto). ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 468 - Regulates charges for water to mobile home parks in Las Vegas Valley Water District Assemblyman Genie Ohrenschall, District No. 12, testified. She advised there were approximately 19 mobile home parks in District 12 and most of those parks were for senior citizens. She said, currently, mobile home parks in Las Vegas were charged for water at the rate which would be charged if there were individual water meters on each lot within the park. She explained this method of charging was established by a special regulation promulgated by the Las Vegas Valley Water District. She indicated that regulation contained a sunset clause and, effective in June of 1995, the water district would return to utilizing its normal rate structure and would determine the rate to be charged by measuring the amount of water used. She said, because most mobile home parks had master water meters rather than individual meters on each lot, mobile home parks would be charged a rate which was "...three times more expensive, golf club, recreational rates." Ms. Ohrenschall advised A.B. 468 provided, if it was reasonable to believe more than half the water which passed through a master meter in a mobile home park was used by occupants of individual lots in that park for residential purposes, the Las Vegas Valley Water District would charge, for the total amount of water used, the sum which would be charged if the water was measured in equal parts through a number of individual meters. She explained this meant the water district would charge for the water at residential rates. Ms. Ohrenschall said the Las Vegas Valley Water District imposed different rates for water usage to encourage conservation of water and less use of water for recreational purposes. She contended residents of mobile home parks did not use water for recreational purposes. She indicated, if a mobile home park offered any recreation connected with water, it be one swimming pool. She maintained residents of mobile home parks used water for normal purposes such as cooking and bathing. She said, in her district, residents of mobile home parks also used water for one additional purpose. She explained perhaps 50 percent of the senior citizens who resided in mobile home parks in her district could not afford air- conditioning and, therefore, in summer, they used swamp coolers. She advised, in the summer, the temperature in Las Vegas could rise to as high as 120 degrees and asserted a senior citizen's tolerance for extreme temperatures was limited. Ms. Ohrenschall advised another bill pending before the legislature would allow mobile home parks to convert to use of individual water meters. She said, however, conversion was expensive and time consuming and owners of some smaller mobile home parks might not believe it was economically feasible for them to convert to individual meters. Ms. Ohrenschall reiterated the water district presently charged mobile home parks for water at residential rates and contended all that was being requested, through A.B. 468, was that it continue to do so until a better solution was found. Assemblyman Bennett asked whether A.B. 468 should include a provision which would cause it to become effective upon passage and approval. Ms. Ohrenschall replied she thought including such a provision would be a good idea. Assemblyman Nolan asked what would happen if it could not be determined how much water a mobile home park used for its swimming pool and to maintain common grounds. Ms. Ohrenschall replied she believed the water district had tables which set forth the amount of water recommended to be used to maintain certain types of lawns and said a swimming pool's capacity would be known. She indicated, in order to compensate for common grassy areas, newer mobile home parks generally employed desert landscaping around their individual mobile homes or had no landscaping at all around those homes. She advised newer mobile home parks already had individual water meters. Mr. Nolan referred to the language of A.B. 468 "if it is reasonable to believe" and asked who would determine what was reasonable and what was not reasonable. He also asked, "...isn't there a better way to quantify that?" Ms. Ohrenschall responded, "I had envisioned it as the `reasonable' being tested by a colloquy between the water district and park management and owners, with the water district having the final say, since they are the exclusive utility." She indicated she was unable to think of a better way to quantify it. Assemblyman Tripple asked whether the purpose of A.B. 468 could not be accomplished on a local level rather than by legislation. Ms. Ohrenschall replied it could not. Assemblyman Lambert asked whether anyone had approached the Las Vegas Valley Water District's board in an attempt to solve the problem (addressed by A.B. 468). Ms. Ohrenschall replied she had done so and advised representatives of the water district were meeting with park residents and park owners to gain their input and to attempt to implement changes. She indicated the water district was attempting to solve the problem by getting older mobile home parks to convert to individual meters and, in order to accomplish that, was offering to provide those meters free of charge. She advised a meter cost approximately $165, however, the cost of conversion was approximately $3,000 per mobile home space. Mr. Bennett commented mobile home parks in his district had an average of between 300 and 500 mobile home spaces and one swimming pool. He said, "I don't think, proportionately, they're going to be using the water for much more than residential usage." Ms. Ohrenschall concurred with Mr. Bennett's statement. She contended there was little recreational use of water in those mobile home parks occupied by senior citizens. Assemblyman Barbara E. Buckley, District No. 8, testified. She stated there were more than 2,500 mobile home owners in her district and contended those mobile home owners had special needs. She advised the last rate structure developed by the water district was based on water usage. She explained it was developed in that way because of a new strategy to cause water conservation, which strategy was to urge people to conserve water by imposing penalties for use of more than a specified amount. She asserted the result was mobile home parks, because they used master meters, fell into the same category (with respect to water rates) as golf courses and hotels, and said this imposed a hardship on senior citizens. Ms. Buckley contended the purpose of A.B. 468 could be accomplished at the local level and said the water district was trying to arrive at a solution through use of individual water meters. She indicated, however, underground pipes in some parks were so old they could not accommodate a change from one water meter to 300 water meters. She asserted A.B. 468 was an excellent means to provide a temporary solution and urged the committee to support it. Assemblyman Harrington declared he believed A.B. 468 to be an excellent bill and would support it. Assemblyman Mark Manendo, District No. 18, testified. He stated he was very much in support of A.B. 468 and advised there were 2,100 mobile home spaces in his district which would be affected by it. He expressed concurrence with the testimony given by Assemblyman Ohrenschall and Assemblyman Buckley and indicated what was occurring in their districts was also occurring in his. He urged the committee to support A.B. 468. Mr. George Flint testified. He indicated he was testifying not as a lobbyist but rather as a private citizen and advised he lived in a mobile home in a mobile home park. Mr. Flint referred to Mrs. Lambert's inquiry as to whether the situation addressed by A.B. 468 could not be handled on the local level and said, because the water district's problems were so complex and burdensome, it was difficult for the water district to "...approach, probably, completely fairly, from our perspective, one more situation." He advised, during the legislative session immediately prior to the last legislative session, attempts were made (at the local level) to address an issue similar to that addressed by A.B. 468 but, until the matter was brought before the legislature, no progress was made. Mr. Flint stated, after having lived in mobile home parks for nearly two decades, it was his opinion between 75 and 85 percent of the water used in those parks was used strictly for residential purposes. He suggested, in northern Nevada, there was little possibility for recreation in mobile home parks during the winter months and, during those months, little water was used for anything other than residential purposes. Mr. Flint told of how, many years earlier, while going from door to door in their district, Assemblyman Manendo and Assemblyman Petrak discovered occupants of one mobile home in a mobile home park, who, after they paid their rent and paid for their prescription medications each month, had exactly $31.00 to live on. He spoke of a woman whom he had known for several years who told him she bathed only once a week for fear that, if she used too much water, the owner of her mobile home park would become concerned and raise her rent. He discussed various rents he had paid for mobile home park spaces and contended those who lived in mobile home parks, particularly senior citizens, were constantly afraid any change in the (utility) rates charged a park owner would be passed on to them. Mr. Cam C. Walker, Las Vegas Valley Water District, testified. He said testimony was given that mobile home parks paid the same rate (for water) as golf courses. He stated mobile home parks paid the same rate as single family residences paid. He contended everyone served by the Las Vegas Valley Water District paid the same rate, the only difference being "...the size of the meter." He explained the size of a water meter determined how much water could pass through that meter and determined how large a property or business could be served by that meter. He discussed the sizes of those meters which might be utilized by residences, hotels or golf courses and the cost of installing the various equipment needed to establish water service. Mr. Walker said, when a mobile home park established the size of its water service, it did so based upon the number of occupants it would have. Mr. Walker pointed out senior citizens also lived in apartment complexes and contended an apartment complex would be in the same situation as a mobile home park because its water service served a large number of occupants. He suggested condominiums and townhouses, also, were in the same situation. Mr. Walker maintained the Las Vegas Water Valley District had attempted to establish its water rates equitably. He pointed out some mobile home parks used more water than single family residences used. He advised some mobile home parks had elaborate, decorative, water features and contended, under A.B. 468, those parks would be treated the same as any other mobile home park was treated but differently than apartments, townhouses and condominiums were treated. Assemblyman Segerblom asked whether Mr. Walker testified, in apartment buildings and condominiums, each individual apartment and condominium did not have a separate water meter. Mr. Walker replied most did not but some did. He advised, in some condominium complexes, there were both individual meters for each condominium and a master meter for common grounds. He indicated some condominium complexes operated in the same manner as mobile home parks and divided water (charges) equally among the individual units. Mrs. Segerblom asked whether most newer mobile home parks had individual water meters. Mr. Walker said he believed there was one mobile home park which did but he was not familiar with that park. He advised the Las Vegas Valley Water District would be conducting an engineering study to better determine the cost involved in converting from master meters to individual meters. Chairman Bache commented, currently, Chapter 704 of NRS prohibited individual water meters. Mr. Walker advised the prohibition to which Chairman Bache referred was established 15 years previously. He said, five years previously, the Las Vegas Valley Water District changed its rate structure to "...this size of service concept." He indicated, before the water district made that change, its rate study showed single family residents paid a higher rate for water than did mobile home parks, golf courses, hotels or apartments; he contended that situation was unfair and provided no incentive to conserve water. He stated, "That's why that was put in place that they could not convert to individual meters because of that cost differential." Ms. Thelma Clark, Nevada Seniors Coalition, Inc., testified. She advised one-third of the coalition's members lived in mobile home parks. She indicated, several times in past years, she attempted to get the water district to reduce the rate it charged mobile home owners to a rate comparable to that it charged single family residences. She declared the water district always refused to do so but it admitted, on the average, mobile home owners used 5,000 gallons less water, per mobile home space, than owners of single family residences used. Ms. Clark said the mobile home park in which she lived had two large water meters and stated, "...but we still are paying that maximum price until the water district gave us a special price." She advised mobile home park owners installed small master meters because they were cheaper. She maintained the water district based its charges on the size of a water meter and contended doing so made no sense. Ms. Clark stated she had suggested to the water district that it supply mobile home owners with the various items it wanted people to use in order to conserve water. She said, "...they couldn't afford to but, now, they're willing to give the park owners water meters..." She suggested mobile home owners could decrease their water use and were attempting to do so but were receiving no help from the water district. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 468. SENATE BILL NO. 225 - Makes various changes relating to Airport Authority of Washoe County. Mr. John Sande, Airport Authority of Washoe County, testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit C). He stated S.B. 225 would exempt the airport authority from the statutory requirement to file with Washoe County's General Obligation Bond Commission a report of its outstanding debt, a debt management policy and a capital improvement plan. He explained entities which issued general obligation bonds were required to furnish such information to enable the General Obligation Bond Commission to determine whether or not issuance of a particular series of general obligation bonds was likely to cause the $3.64 overlapping tax limit to be exceeded. Mr. Sande advised the Airport Authority of Washoe County's practice was to issue only revenue bonds, which did not involve taxing power and, consequently, did not require approval by the General Bond Commission. He suggested, therefore, preparing and filing the information required by NRS 350.0035 was a wasted effort. He indicated the airport authority had agreed to an amendment to S.B. 225, made by the Senate, which would remove the airport authority's exemption from NRS 350.0035 in the event it issued or proposed to issue general obligation bonds. Mr. Sande pointed out S.B. 225 also addressed the compensation received by members of the Board of Trustees of the Airport Authority of Washoe County. He explained, under existing law, each member of the board received either $560 per month or $80.00 for each meeting he attended or for any portion of a day which he spent on business of the airport authority, whichever was less. He advised, for all practical purposes, each member of the board was always entitled to receive $560 per month and, therefore, the necessity to keep track of each board member's attendance at meetings and time spent on business of the airport authority was an unnecessary burden on the airport authority's staff. He advised S.B. 225 would establish compensation for every board member at $560 per month. Mr. Harrington commented, if the Airport Authority of Washoe County was made exempt from the requirement to file a quarterly report and, thereafter, decided to issue general obligation bonds, "...they would not have any safeguards, necessarily, in place saying that they should expect a report from you that they're not getting." He suggested the result could be a situation such as the one which occurred in White Pine County. Mr. Sande responded the airport authority would not be issuing general obligation bonds within either his or Mr. Harrington's lifetime. Mr. Harrington asked whether Mr. Sande contacted the Department of Taxation concerning S.B. 225 and whether the department was comfortable with its provisions. Mr. Sande replied, Ms. Carole Vilardo, who represented the Nevada Taxpayers Association, supported S.B. 225 and he had heard no opposition to S.B. 225 from any other source. Mr. Harrington reiterated his question of whether or not Mr. Sande had contacted the Department of Taxation. Mr. Sande replied he had not done so but would be glad to do so if Mr. Harrington wished. Mr. Harrington indicated he would feel more comfortable about S.B. 225 if Mr. Sande would do so. Mrs. Lambert suggested, if the Airport Authority of Washoe County did not intend to use its authority to issue general obligation bonds, the problem addressed by S.B. 225 could be solved simply by removing that authority. Mr. Sande responded what Mrs. Lambert suggested could be done, however, he assumed the airport authority would like to retain its statutory authority to issue general obligation bonds in case it should ever decide it wished to issue such bonds. Mr. Bennett asked what reports the Airport Authority of Washoe County was required to make with respect to revenue bonds. Mr. Sande replied he did not believe there was a revenue bond commission (to which to report) nor any specific statutory requirement to report to any "...super agency..." when revenue bonds were issued. Mr. Bennett asked what would be difficult about writing a letter (to the General Obligation Bond Commission) and advising the reporting requirements did not apply to the airport authority, in a given year, because it had issued no general obligation bonds. Mr. Sande pointed out the reporting requirements were described in Section 1 of S.B. 225. He indicated, if a letter would suffice, there would be no harm in submitting one, but he suggested more than a letter was required. Mrs. Segerblom pointed out the exemption which would be provided by S.B. 225 pertained only to Washoe County's airport authority and asked how Clark County dealt with its airport. Mr. Sande replied Clark County's airport was operated by the county, while the airport in Reno was operated by an independent airport authority. He contended the two situations were very different. Mr. Harrington commented separating a power from its safeguards created the potential for problems and contended, if the Airport Authority of Washoe County was to have the authority (to issue general obligation bonds), it must accept the safeguards which accompanied that authority. Mr. Sande reiterated previous testimony regarding the purpose of the statutory requirement for reporting to the General Obligation Bond Commission. He said, "We shouldn't be taking away enabling power but what we should do is just make sure that the statute provides that, if you ever do issue general obligation bonds, then you become part of the mix." He enumerated some of the items of information an entity was required to provide when reporting to the General Obligation Bond Commission. Mr. Harrington asked whether Mr. Sande would object to S.B. 225 being amended to require, in quarters during which it issued no general obligation bonds, the Airport Authority of Washoe County would be required to submit to the General Obligation Bond Commission nothing more than a letter advising it had issued no general obligation bonds. Mr. Sande replied he would find such an amendment acceptable. Mr. Bennett asked whether there was any statutory requirement "...that the tax commission must be notified of all general obligation debts." Mr. Sande replied he did not know but would ascertain the answer to Mr. Bennett's question. Assemblyman Neighbors asked what would happen if the Airport Authority of Washoe County issued revenue bonds and, thereafter, was unable to meet its obligation on those bonds. Mr. Sande replied he did not believe such a situation was addressed by statute but assumed, if the airport authority was unable to meet its obligations as they arose, it would be insolvent and would have to file bankruptcy. Mr. Neighbors asked whether Mr. Sande believed, if the airport authority was unable to meet its financial obligations, it would fall upon the county to meet them. Mr. Sande replied he did not believe it would. Chairman Bache asked what was the source of revenue for the airport authority. Mr. Sande replied landing fees were a major source of revenue. He indicated there were other sources of revenue but said much of the funding for most airports was provided by the federal government. Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 225. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 144 - Broadens permissible investment of money pooled by public agencies or nonprofit medical facilities for insurance. Mrs. Lambert advised the city of Sparks wished to propose an amendment to a bill (A.B. 144) which the committee had previously "killed." Stephanie Tyler, city of Sparks, testified. She submitted a document setting forth proposed amendments to NRS 277.067 and 277.069 (Exhibit D). She advised NRS 277, which dealt with cooperative agreements among local governments, contained a provision which dealt with the creation by local governments of a pool for self-funded insurance with respect to casualty, surety and property insurance. She said the city of Sparks wished to explore the possibility of expanding that provision to include workers' compensation, group health and liability insurance. She explained, because of major changes which had taken place with regard to workers' compensation insurance, expanding the provisions of NRS 277 as she had suggested would provide greater security to local governments, with respect to posting of bonds for workers' compensation insurance, and would make local governments more self-sufficient. Mrs. Segerblom asked the numerical designation of the bill which the committee had previously "killed." Mrs. Lambert replied it was A.B. 144. She indicated the city of Sparks' proposal was to delete the original language of A.B. 144 in its entirety and "...put this in it..." ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO RECONSIDER A.B. 144. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. * * * * * * * * ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 144 AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY OF SPARKS AND TO REREFER A.B. 144. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. A work session was held. Assemblyman Ernaut gave a report of the subcommittee on A.B. 332. Assemblyman Freeman gave a report of the subcommittee on A.B. 401, A.B. 402 and A.B. 408. Assemblyman Krenzer gave a report of the subcommittee on A.B. 444 and A.B. 506. Chairman Bache gave a report of the subcommittee on A.B. 464, A.B. 465 and A.B. 466. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 15 - Revises scope of access of office of internal audits to state governmental records. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO RECONSIDER A.B. 15. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Krenzer asked why Mrs. Lambert wished the committee to reconsider A.B. 15. Mrs. Lambert replied A.B. 15 would allow the Office of Internal Audits to obtain not only information directly related to an audit but any information, including confidential information in the records of the Ethics Commission. She expressed the opinion the Office of Internal Audits did not need access to information which did not pertain to an audit. Chairman Bache commented the Public Defender and the Attorney General were concerned about A.B. 15 because it would allow the Office of Internal Audits access to their records, thereby creating a violation of the attorney-client privilege. Discussions were held among committee members. Chairman Bache called for a vote on the pending motion to reconsider A.B. 15. THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 15. ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER VOTED "NO." ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 46 - Makes various changes to provisions governing state personnel system. Chairman Bache provided proposed amendments to A.B. 46 (Exhibit E) and explained those proposed amendments. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 46. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held among committee members. Chairman Bache called for a vote on the motion pending before the committee to amend and do pass A.B. 46. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 380 - Requires that portion of electrical generating capacity of certain utilities be provided by use of renewable energy resources. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 380. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held among committee members. Assemblyman de Braga disclosed she owned property which was leased to a geothermal power company and would abstain from voting on A.B. 380. Further discussions were held. Chairman Bache called for a vote on the pending motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 380. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER VOTED "NO"; ASSEMBLYMEN de BRAGA AND LAMBERT ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 381 - Provides for use by state agencies of money attributable to energy savings. Chairman Bache explained the proposed amendments to A.B. 381 set forth in the work session document (Exhibit F). Discussions were held among committee members. ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA MOVED TO AMEND (AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT F) AND DO PASS A.B. 381. ASSEMBLYMAN SEGERBLOM SECONDED THE MOTION. Further discussions were held. MOTION BY ASSEMBLYMAN KENZER TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO "AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 381" TO FURTHER AMEND A.B. 381 BY RETURNING "MUST" TO "MAY." ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMEN SEGERBLOM AND DE BRAGA VOTED "NO"; ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. Chairman Bache called for a vote on the main motion to "amend and do pass A.B. 381." THE MOTION CARRIED; ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 435 - Revises provisions governing forfeiture of certain water rights. Mr. Neighbors submitted a document setting forth background on A.B. 435 (Exhibit G) and a document setting forth proposed amendments to A.B. 435 (Exhibit H). Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, testified. He explained the purpose of A.B. 435 was to create a mechanism which would allow the State Engineer's office to notify water right owners of the impending forfeiture of their water rights. Mr. Busselman discussed the proposed amendments to A.B. 435 (Exhibit H). He advised the first proposed amendment would eliminate the deletion of subsection 1 of Section 2 and explained retaining subsection 1 of Section 2 retained both the requirement water be put to beneficial use and the provision that failure to put water to beneficial use over a period of five consecutive years would result in forfeiture of the water right. He explained the second proposed amendment would make a new paragraph of the italicized language commencing on line 1 of page 2 and would amend that language by adding the words which were underlined in the proposed amendment. Mr. Busselman indicated the requirement water be put to beneficial use within five years would be retained but, if the State Engineer's records indicated water had not been put to beneficial use by the end of the first four years of the five year period and there was an impending forfeiture of a water right, notice of the impending forfeiture would be given to the owner of the water right. He advised the provisions of A.B. 435 could apply in situations where the State Engineer's record of water use was not based on pumpage records but, rather, was created through a hearing process. He pointed out two examples of such a situation were provided on page 2 of Exhibit H. Mr. Busselman referred to lines 12 through 14 on page 2 of A.B. 435 and explained the proposed amendment to the language in those lines would give the State Engineer discretion as to whether or not to grant an extension of time ( to make beneficial use of water) and would provide that the State Engineer give notice of his determination with respect to a request for an extension of time. Mr. Busselman advised the proposed amendment to subsection 2 of Section 2, at line 19 on page 2 of A.B. 435, would return "shall" to "may" and change the word "holder" to "owner." Chairman Bache referred to the proposed amendment to delete the bracket preceding the word "time," on line 20 of page 2 of A.B. 435, and asked whether, on line 21, the bracket following the word "under" was to be deleted also. Mr. Busselman indicated he was not sure how it should be accomplished but the desired language for the provision under discussion was set forth on page 2 of Exhibit H. Mr. Bussleman read the desired language to the committee. Mr. Busselman referred to subsection 3 of Section 2 of A.B. 435 and advised it was proposed the brackets on lines 36 and 44 be deleted. He advised, in the opinions of both the Attorney General and the State Engineer, "...because of the special nature of those center pivot irrigators who have corners..." the provisions of that subsection should be retained in the bill. Mr. Bennett referred to line 32 on page 2 of A.B. 435 and suggested the wording be amended to read "Any economic conditions, governmental regulations or natural disasters..." He explained the reasoning behind his proposed amendment. Mr. Busselman indicated the Nevada Farm Bureau would have no objection to the amendment proposed by Mr. Bennett but suggested perhaps it was not necessary. Mrs. Lambert said she would oppose the amendment suggested by Mr. Bennett. She advised the proposed amendments to A.B. 435 (Exhibit H) had been reviewed by everyone involved with water in Nevada and suggested altering those amendments (Exhibit H) could create problems. She indicated the State Engineer had broad authority and she believed he would be able to resolve the concern expressed by Mr. Bennett. Mr. Neighbors advised he concurred with Mrs. Lambert's comments. Mr. Bennett pointed out the committee had recently reviewed another bill, proposed by the State Engineer, which "...asked for a laundry list because they didn't have the authority to define a one-inch lateral going to an outbuilding as residential usage." Chairman Bache asked whether all references to "holder" of a water right in A.B. 435 were to be amended to read "owner." Mr. Busselman replied it was his understanding they were. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 435 (IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBIT H AND, ALSO, TO CHANGE ALL REFERENCES TO "HOLDER" OF A WATER RIGHT TO READ "OWNER") AND DO PASS A.B. 435. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held among committee members. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 341 - Makes changes concerning group insurance coverage of trustees of school districts. Mrs. Lambert advised Ms. Denice Miller, the committee's research analyst, had discussed A.B. 341 with Assemblyman John Carpenter, sponsor of the bill, and asked Ms. Miller to explain Mr. Carpenter's concerns. Ms. Miller reminded the committee the purpose of A.B. 341 was to enable school district trustees who retired or who either were not re-elected or chose not to seek re-election to retain any group insurance plan under which they were covered. She advised, however, A.B. 341 contained no provision for retroactivity. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE'S PRIOR ACTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 341. ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussions were held. Mrs. Lambert said she believed Assemblyman Carpenter intended the two school board trustees who requested he sponsor A.B. 341, as well as the other school board trustees, benefit from its provisions. Mr. Harrington asked whether causing the provisions of A.B. 341 to apply retroactively might create complications. He commented there was probably a large number of former school board trustees who "...could come in or not come in..." He suggested, by making A.B. 341 retroactive, the committee might be creating a "...selection group that may be an adverse selection group..." Mrs. Lambert advised the intent was to make the provisions of A.B. 341 retroactive only to January 1, 1995. Mr. Harrington indicated, if A.B. 341 was to be made retroactive only to January 1, 1995, his concern was eliminated. Chairman Bache called for a vote on the pending motion to "reconsider the committee's former action to amend and do pass A.B. 341." THE MOTION CARRIED. * * * * * * * ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 341 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMITTEE'S PREVIOUS MOTION AND, ALSO, TO CAUSE IT TO BE RETROACTIVE TO JANUARY 1, 1995 AND DO PASS A.B. 341 ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION THE MOTION CARRIED. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12 - Urges Federal Government to adhere to states' laws governing use, allocation, management and protection of water. Chairman Bache advised it was proposed to amend S.J.R. 12, at line 20 on page 1, by deleting the words "and court decrees." ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.J.R. 12. ASSEMBLYMAN HARRINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Bennett explained eliminating the words "and court decrees" would give the Colorado River Commission authority to pursue changing the "...law of the river..." and would remove various technical problems from the Colorado River Commission's endeavors to obtain additional water for the Las Vegas Valley. Chairman Bache called for a vote on the motion pending before the committee. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Bache assigned various bills to committee members for the purpose of making floor statements as follows: S.J.R. 12 to Mr. Bennett; A.B. 435 to Mr. Neighbors; A.B. 381 to Mrs. de Braga. Chairman Bache advised he would make the floor statement on A.B. 46. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 10:35 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Sara Kaufman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs May 11, 1995 Page